01-03-1985 Council Packet Special Meeting

Home Browse Search

cally exempting from flow control all materials that are separ, mixed waste for recycling. Centralized processing facilities mwst be .. appro- priately to account for maximum recycling scenarios. The Council is required to adopt measurable objectives and outline activities for each metropolitan county and local unit of government in the region. To determine the most appropriate source separation collection method for the wide variety of cities and townships, the Council considered population, number of residential and commercial generators, density, and development designation the community in the Council's Metropolitan Development Framework. Based on this information, along with proximity of t!,•- city or township to other major .asre generation areas, recycling service r thor!s were identified for each local unit of government (see Figure 4-11. Figure 4-1 shows three levels of recycling service. If curb -side, or "on - route," collection is suggested, this implies that once -a -month curb -side pickup of identified recyclables should be provided. Also, once -a -week curb- side pickup of compostable yard waste should be provided, or an alternative method of separate yard waste collection at least as convenient. Within the curb -side areas, it is implied that existing drop-off programs •h!•- in- tinue. If drop-off is suggested, this implies that that city or P. under coordination of the respective county, should provide a cc drop- off location for recyclable`. and yard waste wl:P.'.n its boundaries. no desig- nation is identified, then tic city or township is assumed to be served by nearby drop-off site in an ad;... nt community. These objectives are to be attained by 1988. These are mi—nium objectives to be used as guidelines by the counties in developing more sf ii implementation plans. More convenient service delivery is encourage,' The region has a well -established recycl - dustry currently ..ace that has evolved during a long history. It ,�.eatial that the Council and metro- politan counties first uM •rstend the ex, recycling system to be able to build a more effective sr ;enara*lnr 9r ,ran. Markets must be examined carefwlly and negative facilities should be minimized to the extent possible wh .g the regional objectives. For instance, the area of - fied for curb -side collection has a well - established network c' .: .,ers, both charitable i.nd for -profit, that can benefit from in as. ar&nt ;?volvement. Therefure, the counties and mur.�_ipa :'Lies must ,.,r V.".. operations before developing new pro- m. it is possible, e, ^sting drop-off facilities, with appropriate expai.;ions, could serve the drup-off needs of waste generators within most of 'he uriian and suburban areas. Separate Collection of Ya ' Wastes Tne areas identified for curb -side service should have once -a -week, on -route collection of yard wastes during the spring, summer and fall growing season months by the end of 1987. Alternative service may be provided, !vch as drop- off sites for yard waste, if it can be demu.istrated to be at least as conveni- ent. Drop-off sits could range from small, cgighborhood cur —ting operations to large, heavily mechanized multi -county facilities. Jolun.. y participation in this type of yard waste source separation shoeld reach 2: percent in addi- tion to those people complying with the msilching/backyard composting strategy. Therefore, the total waste strr:m impact duo to s ate collection of yard wastes should be about 37,000 tons or two percent he total waste stream. After mandatory ordinances. are adopted and publi,,zed, the participation in 4i